Gay Marriage/Gay Rights/Etc.

[JustinC939]

And while marriage can be a religious institution, religion is not always and does not have to be a religious institution. People get married without setting foot inside a church. And again, I ask, why is it the right of the religious right to say howtwo consenting adults must live their lives?

[Phopojijo]

And marriage by something other than a man and a woman offends many of those whose religion marriage is a institution of.

1) I'm Roman Catholic. I'm for the definition of marriage being changed to be inclusive (like it has been in Canada)... but I'm against forcing religious institutions to perform marriages on homosexual couples. (I wish they would on their own right... but forcing them to do it when they don't want to is worse). But that's not being asked for yet... if it is, I'd be against it. But it's not, and I don't believe is requested here either (and I know it's not ruled).

2) Civil Unions aren't the same thing as a marriage.

3) It's discrimination the one way, but not the other.

Three strikes, you nuts are out.

[JustinC939]

^ I don't think that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriages. But I'm sure that some churches will perform same sex marriages when it becomes legal nationwide, and at the very least gays can get married in a courthouse. At least that would be marriage.

[kbohip]

1) I'm Roman Catholic. I'm for the definition of marriage being changed to be inclusive (like it has been in Canada)... but I'm against forcing religious institutions to perform marriages on homosexual couples. (I wish they would on their own right... but forcing them to do it when they don't want to is worse). But that's not being asked for yet... if it is, I'd be against it. But it's not, and I don't believe is requested here either (and I know it's not ruled).

It's "Catholics" like yourselves that keep me out of that church anymore. Let me guess, you're a pro-choice Catholic too right? Let me put it to you as easily as I can. The Catholic church is against gay marriage. If you belong to the Catholic religion, you're against it as well. Instead of wishing for them to change, why not find a religion that better suits your needs? I just can't understand why someone will remain a member of a church when they won't stand behind their core beliefs, and even worse, wants that church to change those beliefs for them.

[Phopojijo]

Lol... it's open-minded Catholics that believe that it's not our place as mortals to judge one another that keep you out of that Church?

Didn't you say you left Catholicism because the priest refused to marry you to your non-Catholic wife (despite the Vatican since the second Vatican Council changing their mind)?

[baghdad bob]

Prop 8 judge to religious believers: It's not about you

The ruling says:

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

Walker also writes,

Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

Walker examines about how several major religious groups -- Catholics, Mormons, and conservative evangelical groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod -- condemn either homosexual identity or behavior or both, citing documents from the Vatican to denominational resolutions.

But he spells out in all capital letters in the decision:

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION...

bb

[kbohip]

Lol... it's open-minded Catholics that believe that it's not our place as mortals to judge one another that keep you out of that Church?

Didn't you say you left Catholicism because the priest refused to marry you to your non-Catholic wife (despite the Vatican since the second Vatican Council changing their mind)?

You say open-minded, the Catholic church says sinner. Call yourself whatever makes you feel better but in the end you're going against the beliefs of the church and what they claim is the will of God.

And yes it was me that said I left Catholicism because of the nonsense with them frowning on my wife being from another faith. That certainly wasn't the only reason I no longer attend though. One of my biggest beefs with Catholicism is the ever increasing pandering to their followers personal beliefs. I was taught in Catholic school that abortion and homosexual marriage was wrong. Now I see a movement from "open-minded" parishioners that are working to change this. Sorry, but religion shouldn't have to change to meet the whims of it's members. It sort of makes it worthless if it does imo.

[AMDScooter]

1) I'm Roman Catholic. I'm for the definition of marriage being changed to be inclusive (like it has been in Canada)... but I'm against forcing religious institutions to perform marriages on homosexual couples. (I wish they would on their own right... but forcing them to do it when they don't want to is worse). But that's not being asked for yet... if it is, I'd be against it. But it's not, and I don't believe is requested here either (and I know it's not ruled).

2) Civil Unions aren't the same thing as a marriage.

3) It's discrimination the one way, but not the other.

Three strikes, you nuts are out.

1r) I'm not religious at all. I'm also not a homophobe. And I'm still against the word marriage being redefined. Period.

2r) Explain to me how civil unions differ from a marriage in a court of law.

3r) Explain how it's only discrimination "one way". I've already laid out how the "logic" employed there fails.

I simply disagree with you. Take your "strikes & nuts" and place them where the sun don't shine... I'm not talking about yer armpit either.

[baghdad bob]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUE PROCESS

The evidence shows that domestic partnerships do not
fulfill California’s due process obligation to plaintiffs for two
reasons. First, domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage
and do not provide the same social meaning as marriage. FF 53-54.

Second, domestic partnerships were created specifically so that
California could offer same-sex couples rights and benefits while
explicitly withholding marriage from same-sex couples. Id, Cal Fam
Code § 297 (Gov Davis 2001 signing statement: “In California, a
legal marriage is between a man and a woman. * * * This [domestic
partnership] legislation does nothing to contradict or undermine
the definition of a legal marriage.”).

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF
53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic
partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and
responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that
the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly
disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that
marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic
partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process
obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a
substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same sex
couples.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind
now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

bb

[Keven]

As for the Tea Party -- it depends... are you talking about the Libertarians who started it, or the Conservatives who abused it and now are often in the mass majority?

This is a good way to put it.

I still don't believe that Tea Party has a whole has any official stance on gay marriage, though many Tea Party members and even individual state parties may be against it.

[JustinC939]

And I'm still against the word marriage being redefined. Period.

The definition of marriage varies from culture to culture. There is no one singular definition. And even if it is being redefined. So what, things get redefined all the time.

2r) Explain to me how civil unions differ from a marriage in a court of law.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedd...nvmarriage.htm

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is not recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

I'm sure there's more, but it's a start

3r) Explain how it's only discrimination "one way". I've already laid out how the "logic" employed there fails.

It's discrimination because you are denying the right of marriage to same sex couples. Offending people is NOT discrimination. Should we deny inter-racial marriages because that offends people? Should we deny free speech because free speech offends some people? Your logic FAILS with a capital "F".

[JustinC939]

And something else I'd like to add regarding the matter of gays and religion, and the religious right is; why does religion always want to pick on the gay community? Yeah it's a sin and all that. But so are alot of things. I don't see nearly as many religious right wingers people getting offended and protesting alcohol abuse, greed, lust, or any other "sin". Did you you know that eating pork and shellfish is a sin? The bible says that right above where it says a man shall not lie with another man. So where are the protesters? Where are the shellfish activists?
The religious right doesn't generally tackle these issues because there are alot of people who like to drink alcohol, and eat seafood, and pork, and they'd look like idiots if they went out protesting hotdogs and seafood. But gays are a minority and therefore an easy target. On top of that it makes for a nice little "wedge issue" that will get the religious sh** kickers out to the polls and vote for their candidate.

[/\/\adGamer]

this thread started out real classy

[JustinC939]

^Thank you

I know. It's okay when you guys call liberals and democrats bad names, but it's not okay when we call the tea baggers tea baggers.

Just another TLR double standard.

[/\/\adGamer]

^^^ You might as well just start arguing with yourself.This horse of a subject has been beaten to bloody death here at TLR. I have yet to see where the TEA party movement has even discussed the issues of queers much less queers getting married. Besides Everyone knows marriage is between one woman and one man.